Martinez v.

Morfe
March 24, 1972 | Fernando, J.
B. Crimes Against Popular Representation – 11. Violation of Parliamentary Immunity

Doctrine: RPC 145 (Violation of parliamentary immunity) – By virtue of Sec. 2, Art. XVI of the Constitution which declares
as inoperative any existing law inconsistent with the Constitution, Art. 145 of RPC which was enacted in Jan. 1, 1932 and
which accords legislators a generous treatment exempting them from arrest even if warranted under a penal law, is inconsistent
with the Constitution is consequently inoperative.
Case Summary: Martinez & Bautista (Constitutional Convention delegates) are facing criminal prosecutions. As such, they
would like to invoke their alleged right to immunity of arrest. Their alleged right was based on the Constitutional Convention
Act, wherein, delegates are entitled to the parliamentary immunities of a senator or a representative. The Solicitor-General,
on behalf of the judges, disputed that the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity does not cover criminal cases.

Facts:

Martinez y Festin – Falsification of Public Document (Penalty: Prision Mayor)

1. June 1971: An information was filed against Martinez for falsification of a public document. Its basis was his stating
under oath in his certificate of candidacy for delegate to the Constitutional Convention that he was born on June
20, 1945, when in truth and in fact he knew that he was born on June 20, 1946.
2. July 1971: A special appearance on his part questioning the power of respondent Judge to issue a warrant of arrest and
seeking that the information be quashed. On the same day, there was an order from the lower court suspending the release
of the warrant of arrest until it could act on such motion to quash.
3. July 1971: An omnibus motion from him, with previous leave of court, to quash the information, to quash the warrant of
arrest, or to hold in abeyance further proceedings in the case. It was not favorably acted on.
4. Aug. 1971: Respondent Judge rendered an order denying the petitioner’s omnibus motion to quash. In his belief that the
information and the warrant of arrest in this case are null and void, the petitioner did not post the required bond.
5. Sept. 6, 1971(Afternoon): He was arrested by the City Sheriff. At the time of the filing of the petition, he was confined at
the City Jail in the custody of respondent City Warden of Manila. He was on his way to attend the plenary session of the
Constitutional Convention. Such arrest was against his will and over his protest.
6. Sept. 9, 1971: He was arraigned. A motion by petitioner to reconsider the court’s order of Aug. 1971 was denied in open
court. On the very same day, he filed petition for certiorari and habeas corpus, but having been released on bail (Sept. 11,
1971), the petition is now in the nature solely of a certiorari proceeding.

Fernandez Bautista, Sr. – Violation of Revised Election Code (Penalty: Not Higher Than Prision Mayor)
1. June 1971: Bautista is a duly elected and proclaimed delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. He has continued
since then to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of a delegate.
2. Two criminal complaints were directly filed with the CFI of Baguio and Benguet by a certain Moises Maspil, a defeated
delegate-aspirant who placed 15th, against the petitioner, and his co-accused for alleged violation of RPC Sec. 51 in that
they gave and distributed free of charge food, drinks and cigarettes at two public meetings, one held in Sablan and
the other in Tuba, both towns being in the Province of Benguet.
3. Aug. 7, 1971: Respondent Presiding Judge issued an order for the filing of the corresponding informations.
4. Aug. 14, 1971: Before a warrant of arrest in said criminal cases could be issued, petitioner invoked the privilege of
immunity from arrest and search, pursuant to Sec. 15 of R.A. No. 6132 (1971 Constitutional Convention Act) , in relation
to Sec. 15, Art. VI of the Constitution and Art. 145 of RPC.Respondent Judge, on the very same day, held in abeyance
the issuance of a warrant of arrest and setting the hearing of said Motion on August 23, 1971.
5. Aug. 23, 1971: Petitioner did not prevail on the hearing of said motion notwithstanding his insistenceon his claim for
immunity, a warrant of arrest being ordered on the same day.
6. Sept. 11, 1971: there was a motion to quash such order of arrest filed by petitioner. He was unsuccessful, respondent
Judge, in an order of said date, ordering his immediate arrest. His petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed with this
Court on September 15, 1971.
Petitioners , Martinez and Bautista, seeks to have their warrants of arrest be quashed on the claim that by virtue of the
parliamentary immunity they enjoy as delegates, ultimately traceable to Sec. 15 of Article VI of the Constitution as construed
together with Art. 145 of RPC, they are immune from arrest.

Issue: WON criminal cases are included in immunity from arrest – No.

Held:
1. No. Art. VI, Sec. 15 of the Constitution provides that immunity from arrest does not cover any prosecution for treason,
felony and breach of the peace. Treason exists when the accused levies war against the Republic or adheres to its enemies
(aid/comfort). Breach of the peace covers any offense whether defined by RPC or any special statute.Any person who
acted against public peace is susceptible to prosecution.
2. There is full recognition of necessity to have members of Congress and Constitutional Convention to be entitled to the
utmost freedom to enable them to discharge their responsibilities.
3. When it comes to freedom from arrest, however, it would amount to the creation of a privileged class, without justification
in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal offense, they would be considered immune during their
attendance in Congress and in going to and returning from the same.
4. A legislator or a delegate can perform his functions efficiently and well, without the need for any transgression of the
criminal law. Should such an unfortunate event come to pass, he is to be treated like any other citizen considering that
there is a strong public interest in seeing to it that crime should not go unpunished.
5. To the fear that may be expressed that the prosecuting arm of the government might unjustly go after legislators belonging
to the minority, it suffices to answer that precisely all the safeguards thrown around an accused by the Constitution,
solicitous of the rights of an individual, would constitute an obstacle to such an attempt at abuse of power. The presumption
is that the judiciary would main independent.

Disposition: Petition for certiorari and habeas corpus by Delegate Manuel Martinez by Festin and the petitions for certiorari
and prohibition by Delegate Fernando Bautista, Sr. are hereby DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Note/s:
Expanded Ratio – American Law
Immunity from arrest is granted by the Constitution was understood in the same sense it has in American law, there being a
similar provision in the American Constitution. Its authoritative interpretation in U.S was supplied by Williamson case:
According to the then Justice, later Chief Justice, White who penned the opinion, "the term "treason, felony and breach of the peace," as used in the
constitutional provision relied upon, excepts from the operation of the privilege all criminal offenses, ... " He traced its historical background thus: "A
brief consideration of the subject of parliamentary privilege in England will, we think, show the source whence the expression "treason felony, and breach
of the peace" was drawn, and leave no doubt that the words were used in England for the very purpose of excluding all crimes from the operation of the
parliamentary privilege, and therefore to leave that privilege to apply only to prosecutions of a civil nature." Story's treatise on the Constitution was
likewise cited, his view on the matter being quite emphatic: "Now, as all crimes are offenses against the peace, the phrase "breach of the peace" would
seem to extend to all indictable offenses, as well those which are in fact attended with force and violence, as those which are only constructive breaches of
the peace of the government, inasmuch as they violate its good order."

As aptly summarizedby Cooley: "By common parliamentary law, the members of the legislature are privileged from arrest
on civil process during the session of that body, and for a reasonable time before and after, to enable them to go to and return
from the same." A prosecution for a criminal offense, is thus excluded from this grant of immunity. So it should be Philippine
law, if deference were to be paid to what was explicitly agreed upon in the Constitutional Convention.